Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Obama Supports Removing “Buy American” Clause in Spending Bill

Power Line has some good questions about Obama’s new-found anti-protectionist attitude.

It will be a good thing if the “buy American” language is removed, but one wonders where Obama has been until now. Did he not know that protectionist measures were being included in legislation that was drafted exclusively by his party? If he knew it was there, did he agree with the protectionism, or was he unable to influence Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? Why is he only now, in response to threats from our allies that American companies will be excluded from competing for business overseas, supporting free trade?

The most charitable interpretation is that this is just one more instance of the Obama administration not having its act together.

(4) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2153 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

  1. This guy is a policy gaff machine. He should start running this stuff by Hillary before he supports it, at least she is wonkish enough to understand the details.

    This guy gets more and more embarrassing every day.

    So, if his actions delay a recovery in the economy, how long before moderate democrats begin to turn their back on the chosen one?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2009 at 0628 hrs


  2. And people called Bush dumb?

    This is worse than the inexperienced Jimmy Carter.

    I hope they eat the ones who voted for him, first.

    Posted by Phel on February 04, 2009 at 0702 hrs


  3. Is it just me, or is anyone else disturbed about how quickly and how publicly Obama caved on this?

    Don’t get me wrong, I think its a boneheaded policy in the first place, and I’m glad its likely to axed.  But I have a broader concern here ...

    Isn’t it setting a bad precedent to so quickly and publicly acqueisce to threats from another nation or group of nations?  I fear it makes us look like Obama can get rolled.  There were so many ways to have this taken out of the language in the bill, and not have it look like it was Obama who caved.  He could have gone to Senate Democrats and said ‘Look ... we’re having issues with the Europeans over the language of this provision, and right now we need to get it out of here… find a way to get it out of the bill that makes it look like we did it to get deal with Senate Republicans and avoid making it look like we caved to pressure from Europe.’ for example.

    Instead, it now looks like he might crumble to threats ... or that he’ll sell out his domestic constituencies to placate demands from foriegn nations ... and that he isn’t thinking any of this through before he signs on to legislation like this, and publicly trumpets them.  It just makes him look weak, I think.  Now we have India issueing veiled warnings to us over our Kashmir policy.  Who’s gonna test his resolve next?  And what will he be willing to give up, to placate them.

    Regarless of weather I agree with his policies, foriegn or domestic, I never want my President to look weak or easy to push around to foriegn nations, friendly or not.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 04, 2009 at 1219 hrs


  4. When you take your model from the European Socialist idea, you get weakness. I suspect that we will see much more of this. The liberal MO is that of compromise and if you do not enter a negotiation with the conviction and trust that you are the top of the food chain and have a position of strength, you get this. Whether this should be included is immaterial because I do not agree we need the TARP 2 bill at all. What I find disconcerting is that we have seen nothing but bungling and inconsistency, and trepidation from the get go. A smooth transition and as soon as the “dumbest, most useless, and bungling” President in history leaves him in charge, flop. That cannot translate well in other parts of the world…

    Posted by fishaddict on February 04, 2009 at 1436 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.